How to Create an Occupy Tribe Reply

By John Robb

Hat tip to NATA-NY.

There’s no question that the Occupy groups have done a great job with constructing the outlines ofresilient communities in the heart of many of our most dense urban areas.

People pitch in to do work. They are considerate despite the difficulty of the arrangement. Food gets served. The area gets cleaned. There is entertainment. There’s innovation (equipment, tech, workarounds). There is education (lots of seminars being taught). There is open, participatory governance. All of this is great and this experience will definitely pay off over the next decade as the global economy deteriorates, panics, fails. It will make building resilient communities easier (there are lots of ways to build a resilient community, we’re trying to document all of the ways how on MiiU).

However, is this experience building a tribal identity? An Occupy tribe? Something that can eventually (there’s lots to do in the short to medium term) go beyond protest and build something new? One even strong enough to create new resilient economic and social networks that step into the breach as the current one fails?

More…

Is Modern Conservatism a Mental Illness? Reply

By Paul Gottfried

Jonah Goldberg in his new collection of meditations, The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas and Andrew Ferguson in his latest Weekly Standard opinion piece “The New Phrenology” complain how the other side gets nasty when depicting its well-meaning opponents. This bothers our “conservative” apologists, since they yearn for all the same good things as the other side: fairness, women’s rights, and democracy for the entire world.

Why, then, do liberals persist in depicting Republicans as fascists, a tendency that Ferguson insists is rife among Democratic sociologists? It recalls the Frankfurt School’s 1950 attack on the fascist “authoritarian personality.” According to Ferguson, the “political reporter” Thomas Edsall has discovered that “social science has lately become a tool of Democrats who want to reassure themselves that Republicans are heartless and stupid.” People such as Edsall, whom Ferguson refers to as “psychopundits,” treat Republican affiliations as evidence of mental disease.

I have called this phenomenon the “pathologization of dissent.” Goldberg and Ferguson superficially address these themes. But it seems ridiculous for those who have discarded the entire Old Right—and who, in Goldberg’s case, write for a magazine that purged John Derbyshire and Bob Weissberg—to be lecturing anyone about tolerance. Everything these journalists attribute to their “Democratic” or “liberal” debating partners applies equally to them. These chaps have no more right to be producing defenses of “conservatism” than Nero had to present himself as a defender of Christian teachings. Talk about chutzpah!

Read more

What Does Ron Paul Want? Reply

By Justin Raimondo

This is the question puzzling Paul’s friends, as well as his enemies. A recentannouncement by the campaign that the anti-interventionist Congressman andpresidential candidate is not spending money in the remaining primary states provoked a Drudge headline: “Paul Out.” That is the GOP Establishment’s fondest wish, but the reality is that Paul is far from “out”: his campaign is merely recalibrating its tactics, concentrating on getting delegates through the complicated and often arcane process of party caucuses and state conventions. In short, Paul is pursuing the very same strategy he’s been talking about since Day One of his remarkably successful campaign: harnessing the enthusiasm and discipline of his supporters to enter a basically hostile entity – the pro-warpro-Big Government Republican party – and challenging the Powers That Be.

There has been all kinds of loose talk about a “deal” being struck with the Romneyites, an impression pushed by the “mainstream” media and other clueless individuals who know little or nothing of Ron and imagine he’s just another politician. They are wrong. There will be no endorsement of Mitt Romney, and, because of that, no quarter will be given – or is being given – to Paulians intent on embedding themselves within the Grand Old Party.

The “go local” strategy of the Paul camp has recently met with a string of high profile successes: they took over the party in AlaskaNevadaIowaMinnesotaMaine, andColorado, and their delegate count is skyrocketing. Precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state, the Ron Paul Revolution is racking up victories – and the Romneyites are in a panic. Due to that panic, they are employing hard-line tactics, often simply closing down local conventions when it becomes clear the Paulians have a majority. They cut off the microphonescall the cops, and whine that the insurgents are “disrupting” a process the party bosses have controlled for as long as anyone can remember. At one point, attendees at a state Republican convention saw the walls literally closing in on them, as Rachel Maddow reported in a segment on MSNBC.

Using force, fraud, and their friends in the media, the Romneyites are determined to block Paul and his movement from having any visibility at the August national GOP convention, to be held in Tampa, Florida. What they want is a coronation: what they will get is a full-blown insurgency in their midst.

The key tactical question is this: will the Establishment even allow Paul’s name to be placed in nomination? GOP rules requires that, in order to do so, the Paul camp must have a plurality of the delegates in at least five states. Given the series of Paul victories at the local level, one would think this threshold has already been reached – but that’s not at all clear, given two factors. The first is that, in some states where the Paulians took control of the proceedings, many of those delegates legally bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot are actually Paul supporters. If they rebel in Tampa, however, there’s no telling what might happen. There seems to be no rule forbidding them from abstaining on the first ballot, and that, in itself, would be a very visible and powerful protest – precisely the sort of dissent the Romneyites justifiably fear.

More…

‘Racist’ Ron Paul Sends 15% Black and Hispanic GOP Delegation to Tampa Reply

Note: The Ron Paul movement provides a glimpse into what the demographics of the future resistance movement will look like and is consistent with the framework I have previously outlined in my “liberty and populism” and “ten core demographics” theories.

By Allan Stevo

In a party that tends to be old and white, Ron Paul and his views are attracting demographic groups that are not traditionally affiliated with the Republican Party – youth, minorities, civil libertarians, the apolitical, those who are traditionally non-voters, and even Democrats.

On May 6, Nevada Republicans announced that 22 Paul supporters were chosen to fill 25 spaces for the Republican National Convention. Recent analysis shows that of those delegates were two female delegates who identify as Hispanic and one black delegate.

One Paul supporter said about Sunday’s results: “A common critique of small-minded opponents on the left is that Paul is racist. He’s exactly the opposite – he sees everyone as an individual, the guy doesn’t give a damn about what ‘group’ we are a part of. He represents a belief in the importance of the individual – something the Republican Party used to represent.”

While Paul speaks an old message, one of freedom, it still resonates with people of all ages and is clearly attracting a new kind of energy to the stodgy, pro-establishment Republican Party.

One of the recently-elected delegates to the Republican National Convention, Wiselet Rouzard, who identifies as African American, commented, “The 15% minority delegation being sent to Tampa to represent Ron Paul is not a surprise but rather reassuring of what the movement is about.”

While some on the left claim the Tenth Amendment insistence of states’ rights and constitutional calls for individual liberties are a veil for racism, Rouzard has a very different perspective: “It’s a movement and revolution that defends civil liberties and equality for all ‘Individuals’ regardless of your skin color, religion, health, wealth, creed. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that truly stands and abides by the Constitution and does what he says.”

Going even further in his displeasure with politicians playing the race card, Rouzard commented on how politicians who cater to specific groups of people tend to do more harm than good. Ultimately, these politicians end up being divisive and undermining the personal liberty of all in our society.

Said Rouzard: “Ron Paul and the Constitution have always understood that blacks, Hispanics, Native-Americans, Christians, the poor, are not the minority in a growing tyrannical government; the Individual has and always will be the minority. All the other candidates look to cater or promise to other sub groups and dismiss the Individual. [This] has continued to divide America.”

More…

Brandon Darby, Left Anarchist To Conservative Activist Reply

From leftoid, to FBI informant, to teabagger.

—–

blog.chron.com

Brandon Darby is probably not a name you are familiar with. After you read this you will wonder why you aren’t familiar with him. His story, to say the least, is fascinating. I met Brandon when he spoke at BlogCon a few weeks ago. The short version is this. Darby was approached by the FBI in late 2007 and asked to infiltrate a group of Leftwing anarchists Austin activists planning to protest and disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. Based on information Darby provided, FBI agents arrested and charged two men on domestic terrorism charges in a plot to firebomb at the convention. Their house was raided, the bombs seized, and Bradley Crowder and David McKay were arrested, charged, accepted plea bargains, and served several year long incarcerations.

More…

European Nationalism: Golden Dawn or Old and Gone? Reply

By Jim Goad

Greece, the cradle of Western Civilization, seems destined to become either the West’s coffin or the site of its rebirth. The nation’s debt crisis, combined with the fact that it’s a primary entry point for illegal immigration into Europe—in 2010, nine of every ten “migrant” outlaws sashayed into the EU zone through Greece—have helped fuel violent street clashes between far-left (i.e., internationalist) and far-right (i.e., nationalist) factions for years.

Last week’s elections were largely a repudiation of the political center, specifically the EU’s financial stranglehold on Greece. Although unashamedly pro-communist parties won a far higher quotient of the votes, most media outrage was predictably focused on the fact that the nationalist party Golden Dawn received 7% of the total. Pundits referred to Golden Dawn’s minor victory as “absurd and repugnant,” “a dark day for Greece,” “a scary development,” “a political horror,” and all the other histrionic scare terms typically spewed by compliant media lapdogs trained to establish an immediate—although immediately fallacious—connection between the merest squib of nationalist sentiment and the Holocaust.

More…

Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War 7

From The Rising Seed

Before reading the book “Red Republican’s and Lincoln’s Marxists” I have to admit I was a bit skeptical. Despite my predisposition to be wary of any fiber of genuine Christian morality flowing within the veins of Lincoln not to mention the founders of the GOP, I did not think it likely that any of them would be sympathetic towards the precepts of communism. After all, communism is a monster of the 20th century isn’t it? More…

It’s Hard to Win When You’re Playing Against the Referee 1

By Paul Gottfried

The Italian political theorist and longtime socialist journalist Carlo Galli recently published a short volume called Perché ancora destra-sinistra (roughly translated, “Why is there still right and left?”). Galli’s definitions show scant evidence of semantic evenhandedness. He seems to identify with a perfumed definition of the left as the good guys “favoring equality and freedom for every individual.” The right, by contrast, is assigned the less palatable role of having to “defend authority, economic inequality, and ethnic roots.”

German legal theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), on whom Galli and I have both written extensively, was much better than Galli in coming up with key definitions. Schmitt associated right-wing attitudes with such political theorists as Thomas Hobbes and St. Augustine—that is, with those who believed that human nature is violent and selfish and that social and political institutions exist to check dangerous human appetites. The left, by contrast, believes people are rational and kindly and can be made even better with a properly planned society. Unlike the right, the left also assumes that all human beings are roughly interchangeable and will develop similarly if exposed to the same meticulously engineered environment.

Galli associates the left with the creation of a modern democratic government aiming at universal equality. The right is not only against the progress of this scheme but is going nuts from failing to stop it. The “right” as defined in this book is not the Republican Party or the editorial staff of NR. It is, according to Galli, the side that views “disorder as a structural given, indeed as something primordial.” Having lost so often to its democratic-egalitarian enemy, this contemporary right “has come to view reality as unstable and contingent.” It now mocks any attempt to discuss “a priori conservative values” because “it is convinced that reality has no foundation.” The true right assumes “the contingent nature of all politics and the continuing disorder of the world.” In the interior of “any such possible right” is the “idea of existing without foundations (infondatezza), which suggests something irremediably nihilistic.”

More…

The Derb is the Word…or is He? Reply

From MRDA’s Inferno.

image

Who would’ve thought such a mild-mannered, bourgeois Englishman could ignite such a fibre-optic firestorm?

A few weekends back, all right-thinking Left-leaners united for a hyperextended Two Minutes Hate session against one John Derbyshire, a Brit expat and paleocon pundit who occupies a comfy niche amongst America’s “alternative Right”. Turns out that the round-goggled reprobate saw fit to scribe a rather un-PC survival guide for the melanin-deficient; and, judging from the resultant comments, and the rash of responses from various Lefty haunts, it appears to have left many a pissed-off Progressive in its wake.

Having previously clicked and leafed through Derbyshire’s output, including his musings on multiculturalism, immigration, and racial IQ, I registered little in the way of surprise when I read the article. It struck me as something of a synthesis of his scribblings, citing crime stats and group averages to concretize another slab of “conservative pessimism”.

I must admit that, whilst I’m not down with the paleocon paradigm for a number of reasons, I appreciate their often incisive criticisms of PC equalitarian conceits. Similarly, whatever misgivings I have with Derb’s Taki Mag piece, I admire his refusal to apologize to his detractors for speaking his mind, even in the face of a firing.

That said, “The Talk” left me feeling rather ambivalent upon “hearing” it… More…

Rick Santorum, I Hate Your Face Reply

Article by Jim Goad.

For me, politics isn’t so much about what sort of society I want to live in as much as what sort of people I want to avoid. I consider myself a misanthropic individualist.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Rick Santorum has been the Republican primary season’s Surprise Moral Warrior. He has already won eleven states, and depending on how he performs in Wisconsin tomorrow, he may continue to battle the icy Mormon cyborg Mitt Romney for the nomination.

Based merely on those who hate Santorum, I suppose I should love him.

After all, he has a rare talent for ruffling progressives’ preening peacock plumage, and that’s usually a good sign. To hear his haters tell the story, he is THE HEART OF EVIL and a DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE who wants to pillage, rape, and divest all of America’s gay anal wombs of their Goddess-given recto-spiritual progeny—or something like that. They say he is a grotesquely bigoted bully whose heartless heart pumps solely on unrefined nitro-powered hatred, a sadistic closet case who is waging a violent Hate Jihad against women, homos, atheists, and every other untouchable pink lamb of modern sensitivities. As is the ironclad rule these days, the Anti-Hate Crusaders employ rhetoric and tactics that ooze far more palpable hatred than the “hate” they’re supposedly fighting, as evidenced in how they deliberately smeared his name with frothy brown anal lube in devising his “Google problem.” Because they took umbrage at the fact he supposedly said SHAME SHAME SHAME at them, they scream SHAME SHAME SHAME back at him, only ten times more loudly. They appear blind to the fact that the problem is hive-brain lynch-mob shaming itself, not which side’s doing it. Shame on all of you!

Last week he was targeted by the Racism Industrial Complex for allegedly calling Obama a “nig-” before correcting himself. I’m not convinced he said “nig-” on that video, but in the past he’s lied about calling people “black,” so it’s possible. Either way, I rate lying as far worse than using forbidden words, but I’m abnormal.

“I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man.”

But despite the fact that I hate his antagonists’ shriekingly misguided moralism, I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man. For starters, I have problems with his face. And his personality. And his politics. And his priggishness. And his authoritarian impulses. In politics as in life, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. In many cases, it’s merely some other jerkoff I dislike for entirely different reasons.

First there’s his face. Sure, it’s unfair to blame him for that incongruous nose jutting out of his lumpy head as if someone jammed a cheese wedge into a potato, so I will not hold him accountable for what is either an act of God or an accident of nature. But he is entirely to blame for that dorky, smug, imperious smirk that his attitude seems to have forever welded onto his visage. His is the mug of a priggish hall monitor who’s forever smelling something unpleasant.

But it’s so much more than his face. At a regrettably low, sad, destitute, and lonely point in my life a few months back, I found myself watching a couple of the Republican primary debates, and his personality rubbed me the wrong way like a Brillo Pad scraping against herpes sores. Both Santorum and I were raised as Pennsylvania papists, and he conjures distant memories of some generically uptight, passive-aggressive, repressed schmoe I would have hated during my dozen years of Catholic school. The fact that he’s Italian doesn’t help, either.

Next Page

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/rick_santorum_i_hate_your_face_jim_goad#ixzz1qzKx2CQz

Keith Preston on Balkanization and the state of exception 2

Keith Preston writes the blog Attack the System,  which attempts to tie together both left and right anarchism in a Pan-secessionism against the empire.   While I come from a radically different perspective than Keith, I find his critique of the way many left anarchists are militant shock troops of liberalism to be a serious and disturbing critique as well as the Nietzschean critique of modernity to be taken seriously and not softened as it has been in French post-structuralism.
More…

Noam Chomsky on the "New Atheism" 69

Noam takes on the atheist fundamentalists.

As an atheist myself, I’ve found these “new atheist” writers to be an embarrassment. First, none of the prominent ones are genuine religious scholars, historians of religion, or cultural anthropologists who can, for instance, examine  the cultural, historical, literary, or linguistic contexts in which the varying parts of the Bible were written to provide an explanation of why fundamentalist biblical literalists are, well, mistaken and ignorant. There are plenty of genuine scholars of religion whose work examines religious beliefs and sacred texts within their proper framework, such as Robert Price, John Loftus, Daniel Barker, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, and D.M. Murdoch. These are the skeptics who are worth paying attention to.

Second, they typically conflate atheism with stereotypical liberal or radical left-wing politics when there’s no inherent relationship whatsoever. See Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche, and Mencken.

Third, like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair, they come across as narrow-minded and ill-informed bigots whose only purpose is to antagonize religious people.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement.  First, who is the audience?  Is it religious extremists?  Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)?  Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)?  Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)?  If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time.  Is the audience atheists?  Again a waste of time.  Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven?  If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.  Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)?  Plainly not.  The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds.  Who, in fact, is the audience?
Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere.  In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven’t found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

NC

Has America Moved Left or Right in Recent Years? 3

This is a question that is often debated by both sides of the conventional political spectrum. Here’s one person’s take on the issue.

I’d say it depends on how you define “left” and “right.” For instance, the ostensible conservative George W. Bush sought to expand federal control over education, expand the welfare state, implement an amnesty program for illegal immigrants, and engaged in Keynesian economics. These are all positions normally associated with the Left. Yet there’s no question that the U.S. regime became more militarist and police statist during the Bush era. Leftists usually consider such things to be “rightist” but these are distinguishing features of communist states as well. But Republicans like Bush are also business-friendly which puts them on the right in the modern sense.

I’d say both sides on this debate have a point. The U.S. has certainly become more militarily aggressive, police statist, and plutocrat-friendly in the last few decades. Yet the broader society and the resulting social policies have clearly become more “liberal” in the conventional sense. Same-sex marriage, for instance, would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

I think these trends represent the general value system of the elite. The elite want to make money, wage war when it serves their agenda, and maintain domestic political control. They shudder at the idea of drugs and guns in the hands of poor white trash or inner-city black folks. But they also want to make use of abortions and have whatever kind of sex they want. They tend not to be religious conservatives and look askance at the religious right, except as occasional useful idiots who can be counted on for jingoistic support. They want a global economy and imported labor, so of course they’re pro-immigration and anti-racist.

So the end-game of the policy agenda of the elite seems to be a plutocratic and militarized albeit multicultural and socially liberal police state.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Conservative pundits love to decry the “radical left” in this country, but I don’t see it. Despite all the cries of socialism and Marxism, the radical ideology just isn’t there. While the Republican candidates seem to be racing toward the most extreme position they can manage, America’s left wing is increasingly moderate.

Take the health care bill for example. “Obamacare” was, and still is, called a government takeover of health care and accused of the usual rounds of left-wing extremism, but it wasn’t really that radical. It did create new laws regulations, but the biggest move in the bill was the individual mandate, a requirement that everyone have private insurance.

That’s right, the so-called government takeover actually works through private companies. The government didn’t take over anything. There was talk of a public option, a tax-funded insurance program for the poor, but that was gone by the time the bill passed. Other countries have governments that act as insurers and run hospitals, but ours can’t even try a middle-of-the-road private insurance system without a huge conservative backlash.

Despite the lax liberalism of the Democrats, it seems like they’re being accused of socialism more than ever. President Obama, a moderate who readily makes concessions to the Republicans, is still perceived as a leftist, and is even the subject of a local billboard that labels him a “Wannabe Marxist dictator.” The perception isn’t attributable to the radicalism of his own policies, obviously, but to the radicalism of his conservative counterparts. Someone looking from the Tea Party’s corner of the political spectrum, a corner abounding in tax cuts and border fences, could perceive practically anyone as a socialist ideologue. Obama isn’t actually that liberal, but he appears liberal to the conservatives because their vantage point shifts their perception of him.

That vantage point of the right is drifting farther and farther to the right, both with politicians and voters. Sure, the public may be increasingly accepting of gay rights, and Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned, but the Supreme Court gave corporations unlimited campaign contribution, the Christian right has become a major player in national politics, the existence global warming has become a disputed political issue and the Republican Party threatened to make the U.S. default on its debt.

Herman Cain suggested an electrified border fence, Rick Perry promised to do away with the IRS, Mitt Romney openly said that “Corporations are people, my friend,” and don’t get me started on Michele Bachmann. A few weeks ago, showing us just how extreme the right wing is getting, televangelist Pat Robertson told the Republican presidential candidates to stop their race for extremism.

Of course, this is happening during a primary, and the candidates will probably seem more moderate when the general election starts and they dive to the bottom of the barrel to start scraping around for anything with mass appeal. But have the Democrats ever shown this sort of degree of liberal extremism? Liberal politicians — the ones who are still around, anyway — often don’t even identify as liberal anymore. Now, they’re “progressive,” because “liberal” somehow became a dirty word somewhere along the way.

While there may be a radically liberal segment of the public, there certainly isn’t one in Congress. If it can be said that the Republican Party is drifting right, the same is also true of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders, the only real socialist in the Senate, was elected as an Independent. The website PoliticalCompass.org did an evaluation of the 2008 presidential candidates in both major primaries, and Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader were the only people even placed in the liberal quadrant. Everyone else, Democrats included, scored in the conservative quadrant; the Democrats were just closer to the center. Even though we usually perceive figures like Kucinich and Nader as extremely left wing, the political compass placed them close to the center, saying that even though they are “depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.”

While Republicans regularly call for an end to the Environmental Protection Agency and suggest an invasion of Iran, how many Democrats suggest anything more radical than cap-and-trade or call for a massive shrinking of the military budget? When the 2007 mortgage crisis hit, the basic plan was to give them loans to tide them over through the recession, i.e., the bailouts. Plenty of Republicans suggested leaving the banks to collapse, but how many Democrats advocated nationalizing banks instead?

While radical beliefs aren’t necessarily bad, and they’re certainly not new to American politics, the recent shift is going one way. A political system with a strong presence in the middle ground is probably the best way to work, if only so the politicians are ready and able to compromise with each other. If neither side tilts too far to one side, things can get done (even if we wish the policies were more in line with our own) because of those people in the middle ground. The trouble is that the middle ground is being filled by the people who used to be on the left.

Brian Hampel is a junior in architecture. Please send all comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers 2

Article by Stephen D. Foster.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Republicans in Indiana are taking self-defense too far. In a move supported by the National Rifle Association, the Indiana House passed Senate Bill 1, which allows homeowners to shoot and kill police officers they believe are unlawfully on their property or in their homes. The bill could also extend to federal law enforcement officials.

According to the Evansville Courier Press, the bill is a response to a decision made by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011. “The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. That decision came in the case of Richard Barnes, who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house while they were responding to a domestic dispute Barnes had with his wife.”

The key word there, is ‘believe.’ People have different beliefs when it comes to the police. Most people respect the boys in blue and understand that they are just trying to do a dangerous job that doesn’t exactly pay well. Some, on the other hand, have no respect at all for police and believe them to be the enemy at all time, whether they have a warrant or not. But it’s a particularly risky situation that Republicans are putting police officers in, because in some situations police officers enter homes when they have sufficient reason to believe that a crime is taking place. For example, if a police officer is walking by a home and a woman screams because her husband is beating her mercilessly, there isn’t time to wait for a court approved warrant to enter the home. Under Senate Bill 1, which passed by a 74-24 vote, the husband could shoot and kill the officer for entering his home and get away with it. And there are many other situations where police may deem it necessary to enter a home, such as the situation in which the Indiana Court ruled.

More…

Daryle Lamont Jenkins: An Illustration of the Schizoprenic Nature of the "Anarchist" Left 1

Listen to the podcast interview of Daryle. 

Daryle says quite a bit that I agree with in this interview.

Apparently, we are both admirers of the documentary “Anarchism in America.” We agree that the U.S. was originally a federation of sovereign nations that were eventually incorporated into a unified state through the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree that the U.S. will likely eventually split up into a multitude of smaller political entities and that that’s probably a good thing. We both accept the anarchist label for our respective political perspectives. But….

Daryle attacks Ron Paul for “wanting to defeat the first black president.” As if that has anything to do with it. Apparently, skin color alone should be enough to guarantee a head of state the right of re-election.

Supposed left-wing anarchist Daryle describes how he has collaborated with such organizations as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars (i.e. veterans of imperialist wars) to prevent free speech and free association. Oh, for the good old days when the American Legion and radical leftists were mortal enemies.

So apparently Daryle’s “anarchism” amounts to “Support the President and Support the Troops” in a vein reminiscent of Bush and the neocons, and collaborating with, ahem, patriotic organizations for the sake of shutting down free association and freedom of assembly for political dissidents and all the while crusading against freedom of speech for points of view that defy conventional political orthodoxy.

And of the two of us, I’m supposed to be the fascist?

Keith Preston Denounced as Leftist Hijacker of Libertarianism 4

So says a critic of my article “Should Libertarianism Be Cultural Leftism Minus the State?”

It’s great to be attacked as a neo-nazi entryist and leftist hijacker in the same week.

In the past, I’ve also been criticized for being anti-feminist, pro-feminist, homophobic, pro-homosexual, Marxist, capitalist, an anarchist entryist into white nationalism, a white nationalist entryist into anarchism, supporting Holocaust denial, opposing Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, racist, not racist enough, reformist, pro-terrorist, Islamophobic, pro-Muslim, and too many other labels to remember.

Maybe I just have multiple personalities.

How the Working Class Vanished from Progressive Politics Reply

Yes!

Article by Stuart Bramhall.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

If OWS comes to be seen as a movement run predominantly by and for the working class, it will be the first grassroots movement to do so since the Great Depression. The last major mass movement during the Vietnam War was mainly a student-led movement. The working class, which in the sixties was represented by organized labor, was cleverly manipulated through a variety of strategies to throw their support behind the Vietnam War and other reactionary pro-corporate policies.

How Organized Labor Came to Represent Corporate Interests

The anti-union restrictions of the 1948 Taft-Hartley Act and extensive red-baiting during the McCarthy Era laid the groundwork for turning organized labor into the reactionary servant of corporate interests. After red-baiting caused the expulsion of militant rank and file unionists who previously held union officials to account, unions became largely toothless in addressing workplace grievances outside of wage demands. It also gave rise to a trade union bureaucracy that felt closer to management than the workers they supposedly represented. Corporate managers rewarded union officials with all manner of perks for delivering “labor discipline” (i.e. preventing rank and file workers from participating in disruptive industrial action). As former CIA officer Tom Braden bragged in the Saturday Evening Post in 1967, many AFL-CIO leaders were also on the CIA payroll. See http://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/04/lenny-brenner-on-tom-braden.htmlhttp://www.laboreducator.org/darkpast2.htm andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Braden

More…

The Day I Left the Left 9

Article by Jim Goad.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Late one Saturday morning in 1990 under the skeleton-bleaching California sun, I motored through a crumbled, hilly, ashen section of East LA looking to see if any of the Hicks Boys Stoners were around to sell me some weed. Named after East LA’s Hicks Avenue, they were a loosely amalgamated gang of longhaired Mexican metalheads who shunned traditional cholo gang culture’s aesthetic trappings in favor of Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez-styled muerte obsessions, Satan worship, and generally aimless nihilism.

A few weeks earlier, I had written a cover story about the Hicks Boys for the Los Angeles Reader, a now-defunct free alt-weekly largely distributed in West LA. The magazine’s publisher was a short, pie-faced man with a voice so high-pitched one would suspect he was mainlining estrogen. He was slick-bald on top with a horseshoe rim of quarter-inch grey stubble around the sides and a Pixy Stix-thin footlong ponytail hanging limply in the back. Merely describing his ponytail tells you all you need to know about his politics.

More…

The Crazy World of Limousine Leftists Reply

The adventures of Jane Fonda.

Actually, I’ve always thought the right-wing is too hard on Hanoi Jane. Whatever her faults, she was right about Nixon’s war crimes in Indochina.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

One day, at the height of her fame in the mid-Seventies, Jane Fonda turned up on the doorstep of her ex-husband, Roger Vadim. She was lugging a bulging sack.

Vadim’s glamorous new girlfriend let her in, thrilled to meet the movie icon at last. But her excitement soon turned to disbelief. The star of Julia, Klute and The China Syndrome had come to do her laundry.

Why? Because her second husband, Tom Hayden, a Left-wing activist with a bulbous nose and acne-scarred cheeks, had forbidden her to have either a washing machine or dishwasher. Far too bourgeois.

Jane Fonda had a turbulent marriage to her second husbandJane Fonda had a turbulent marriage to her second husband

Not only that, but he’d made her sell her comfortable house in Los Angeles and buy a shabby two-bedroom shack in Santa Monica that smelled of mildew, where the couple shared a mattress on the floor. She couldn’t even wear her Cartier wristwatch any more, because Hayden disliked any show of possessions. So she’d replaced it with a cheaper Timex.

More…